Disposed

Manas Ranjan Rout v. Swapnarani Das

Orissa HC26 Nov 2021WP(C)/5789/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his restoration application in a divorce case filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, arguing grounds still subsisted. The court held notice unnecessary as the suit was dismissed for default, not on merits, and allowed the petitioner to file a fresh case for divorce.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to file fresh case for divorce; writ petition disposed of.

Manas Ranjan Rout Vs Swapnarani Das — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W/P.(C) No.5789 Of 2019 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Manas Ranjan Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Swapnarani Das

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶10

ORDER 26.11.2021

¶11

Order No.

¶12

10. 1. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who is husband. He submits his client had filed for divorce in year 2010. On 27^th August, 2013, the case was dismissed for default. His client’s restoration application was made on 19^th September, 2014. By impugned order the restoration application accompanied by application for condonation of delay, were dismissed on ground that his client could not show sufficient cause for the delay. He seeks interference with impugned order.

¶13

2. Notice has not been issued. Such is not necessary because according to petitioner the grounds for divorce subsist. He can file afresh. Section 21 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regulates proceedings thereunder as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 9 in order IX precludes a plaintiff from bringing fresh suit in respect of same cause of action where the suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8. Dismissal of the suit under rule 8, to attract the

¶14

Page 1 of 1

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

bar under rule 9, must be when defendant appears but plaintiff does not. It is clear from impugned order that opposite party had not appeared on the date of dismissal. This fact is apparent from following passage in para-4 of impugned order, reproduced below:

¶17

“ 04. The petitioner did not want to proceed against the OP No.2 and 3 for which on his prayer, OP No.2 and 3 has been deleted in the cause-title of the pleading. Though the OP No.1 appears to have entered appearance through her advocate since 03.07.2015, as it reveals from the subsequent ordersheet, she has never personally appeared on any date. However no objection was filed by the OP No.1.”

¶18

3. Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh case for divorce, the earlier case having been dismissed for default and not on merits.

¶19

4. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶21

Sks

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Manas Ranjan Rout v. Swapnarani Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Ranjan Rout v. Swapnarani Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat for Pus.

M/S Krishna Tank Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Trishna Agarwal Vs State of Orissa

Sambalpur Dist.Co-Op.Central Bank Ltd. Vs Jogeswar Bhoi and Anr.

Jitendra Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pitambar Rout Vs Chitta Ranjan Patanaik